Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

SHERRY L. SENFT v. KEYSTONE INSURANCE COMPANY (08/10/84)

filed: August 10, 1984.

SHERRY L. SENFT, A MINOR, BY TERRI R. SENFT AND ROBERT C. SENFT, HER GUARDIANS
v.
KEYSTONE INSURANCE COMPANY, APPELLANT



No. 133 Harrisburg 1983, Appeal from the Order of the Court of Common Pleas, Civil Division, of York County at No. 80-S-1845.

COUNSEL

Joseph C. Korsak, York, for appellant.

Donald Yost, York, for appellees.

Wickersham, Olszewski and Hoffman, JJ.

Author: Wickersham

[ 331 Pa. Super. Page 39]

The minor plaintiff-appellee, Sherry L. Senft, by her parents and legal guardians, Terri R. and Robert C. Senft, commenced this action by filing a petition for medical benefits under a no-fault insurance policy issued by defendant-appellant Keystone Insurance Company.

The accident which gave rise to the instant litigation occurred on July 12, 1979. On that date, Sherry Senft was a pedestrian who was struck by an automobile owned by one Luther Schwartz, a farmer. The vehicle involved in the accident, which occurred on Mr. Schwartz's farm, was an unregistered 1966 Ford sedan, used exclusively on the farm.

Appellant denied coverage on the ground that the vehicle that struck the minor appellee was an "implement of husbandry" rather than a "motor vehicle," as defined by the policy. The lower court disagreed, holding that the automobile was indeed a "motor vehicle" and that appellees were entitled to recover medical benefits from appellant. On March 18, 1983, the court en banc denied and dismissed appellant's exceptions. This timely appeal followed.

Appellant presents us with the following issue:

I. Whether the Trial Court erred in finding that the vehicle was a 'motor vehicle' as defined in the Motor Vehicle Code and the No-Fault Act?

A. Whether the Trial Court erred in finding that [the] vehicle was not an implement of husbandry as defined in the Motor Vehicle Code?

B. Whether the Trial Court erred in finding that a determination by the ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.